GARY MARK BOOTH, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RESPONDENT-APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the appellant was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his motion to vacate the dismissal of his appeal, and the district court's order denying the motion should be affirmed.
Appellant was convicted of conspiracy and interstate transportation of stolen goods. While his appeal was pending, he dismissed his retained counsel a…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Withdrawal Of Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
The appellant Booth appeals from an order of the United States District Court denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.
The appellant was convicted of conspiracy to transport stolen goods, 18 U.S.C. § 371, and interstate transportation of stolen goods, 18 U.S.C. § 2314. At his trial he was represented by retained counsel. An appeal was perfected, oral argument was heard and while the matter was under submission in this court the appellant dismissed his retained counsel and filed a pro se motion to withdraw his appeal. The panel of this court which had the matter under consideration granted the motion to withdraw and dismissed the appeal. Thereafter, appellant’s counsel moved for a rehearing on the order granting permission to withdraw the appeal, which was denied. Subsequently, appellant filed a motion to vacate withdrawal of appeal and to reinstate the appeal. That motion was also denied.
Appellant then filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion in the district court contending that the dismissal of his appeal was not voluntary. After reviewing the record, the district court denied the petition without an evidentiary hearing. While we agree that bona fide factual issues in § 2255 cases must be resolved on the basis of an evidentiary hearing, Montgomery v. United States, 469 F. 2d 148 (5th Cir. 1972), we hold that in view of all of the circumstances of this case the petitioner is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his motion and that the order of dismissal by the district court should be affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Isbell Enters., Inc. v. Citizens Cas. Co. OF NEW York, 431 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1970)
- Montgomery v. United States, 469 F.2d 148 (5th Cir. 1972)